News & Analysis as of

Liability › Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Mintz

Supreme Court Narrows the Reach of Omission Liability Claims Under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act

Mintz on

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation v. Moab Partners, L.P., held that omissions of supposedly material information allegedly required to be disclosed under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Left Coast Appeals

This Week At The Ninth: Exemption From Exchange Act Liability

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Left Coast Appeals on

This week, the Ninth Circuit addresses the requirements for invoking a regulatory exemption to liability under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ROTH v. FORIS VENTURES, LLC - ...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

In SEC v. Rio Tinto PLC, the Second Circuit Confirms “Scheme Liability” Claims Require More than Misrepresentations.

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Courts from the United States Supreme Court on down have long grappled with what, precisely, constitutes “scheme liability” under the federal securities laws, and to what extent a scheme can be based solely on false or...more

3 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide